education policy

Pass or Fail: The Objectives of America’s Public Education System

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

We’ve all seen reports about contemporary students graduating high school, or even college without the basic, fundamental skills to flourish on their own. How many students do you know who are well rounded academically, creatively, intellectually and emotionally? Seems like a tall order these days, but it wasn’t always that way.

Individual Focused Education

Let’s take a closer look at some of the original goals and objectives of the American education system. The most notable point about the earliest goals of education seems to be that they were targeted to the individual. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin, one of the most innovative thinkers of his day, recommended an outcome-based approach to education. He saw the need to emphasize literacy and numeracy skills. He saw the need for foundational skills. He maintained that this foundation was fundamental and should be applied to help develop more advanced skills in math and science.

Such knowledge – scientific and mathematical knowledge and understanding – was necessary not only for productivity in the workplace, for individuals to be employable, but because it was in the interest of the individual to understand the world around them. Franklin, like us, lived in an age of tremendous scientific advancements. He was responsible for numerous inventions and discoveries himself. His objectives remain viable today, especially given the advancements we have seen with computers and with connectivity, with communications, and everything that goes along with communications today.

We see some basic applications of this objective in education today, too, in that most children are taught the basics of computers. Creativity was also an important focus for Franklin and the other Founding Fathers. Creativity was important to Franklin because he considered it necessary for the individual to see possibilities in an ever-changing world.

Modern Day Education

Of course, it has been argued that the modern education system in the United States, including such developments as No Child Left Behind, has continued to follow the principles and pursue the goals of the Founding Fathers, Franklin included. With No Child Left Behind, for instance, it could be argued that literacy is very much in focus, along with the basic understanding of math. Similarities between the modern system’s goals and those imagined by the Founding Fathers, however, are minimal. Literacy and even education were targeted to achieve a higher purpose. Franklin envisaged individuals being educated to understand and appreciate the world around them. He desired for children to be educated to interact with their world, their environment, on a higher intellectual plane.

The graded school system itself is the next problem to be overcome. Unfortunately, the resolution of this issue is not as straightforward as a simple curriculum change. The breaking of such a tradition requires an alternative system that will provide swift benefits to the population it serves and target specific outcomes that are most desirable for the education of America’s children.

When you look at early education objectives, in comparison to modern times, it’s as if they’re on opposite ends of the spectrum. For all our advancements and technology, is America’s public education system better off nowadays?

For Australia to improve in maths, policymakers need to make a plan and stick to it

This article was written by Vincent Geiger

Australia is struggling to improve its performance in maths due to a lack of continuity in policymaking.

While Australia tends to plan in three-year cycles, the countries that are performing the best – or making significant improvements – in international rankings for maths, such as Singapore, Finland and Japan – tend to revise their maths curriculum every five to six years.

This allows teachers to become fully acquainted with new initiatives and provides time for the bedding down of any changes to previous practice. It also allows curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

So what impact has a lack of continuity had on maths education in Australia?

Slipping standards in maths

The last two international tests revealed that Australia is failing to improve in maths education.

In the 2015 version of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Australia was 22nd in Year 4 maths, and 13th in Year 8 maths, a decline from 18th and 12th respectively in 2011.

In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Australia was 18th in maths, down from 12th in 2012.

The results of these assessments indicate that the performance of Australian students is declining in both an absolute sense and in comparison to students from an increasing number of other nations.

The government and opposition have blamed each other for the situation, claiming the failure of respective policy direction and its implementation.

Impact of continuity in policy

It is hard to ignore the fact that there are nations that have made changes to their approach to maths education and made significant comparative progress.

In the case of Singapore, revision of the curriculum does not mean throwing out all aspects of previous practice and beginning again. Rather, it means a meticulous process of reviewing what has been effective and what needs to be improved or added to prepare students for the world they will move into – not just the world as it exists.

Curriculum is based on knowledge and practices that have served students well in the past, but is also future orientated.

This period of time also provides an opportunity for curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

The approach to curriculum development is national, focused, carefully coordinated and then thoroughly evaluated.

In Australia, however, education is the responsibility of the respective states and territories. This poses a serious challenge for a coherent coordination of our curriculum development efforts.

Development of an Australian curriculum

The Australian Curriculum was heralded as a landmark in national cooperation in education.

Through the process of negotiation for its development and implementation, however, has emerged a determination by states and territories to preserve their differences and distinctiveness.

Some states have been accused of making superficial efforts to align with a national approach.

State efforts at curriculum development have a tendency to respond to whatever political pressure point is being stimulated at any time. For example, the most recent performance on NAPLAN results are prone to quick fix solutions.

Such flightiness brings into question how any long-term effective change brought about and rigorously evaluated.

Consequently, when looking at our national effort, it appears to be disjointed, unfocused, somewhat ad hoc in its development and close to impossible to evaluate in terms of student outcomes.

Introduction of teaching standards

Australia has created a number of measures to help improve its performance in maths. These include:

  • The introduction of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) national teaching standards, which include a requirement that all graduating teachers have the ability to promote students’ numeracy capabilities across the curriculum.
  • A numeracy (and literacy) tests for initial teacher education students to ensure graduating teachers have the necessary level of personal numeracy to be effective in classrooms.
  • National programs aimed at strengthening initial teacher education students’ mathematics and science knowledge, such as Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers (ETMST).
  • Restoring the Focus on STEM in School Initiative, which aims to support the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects in primary and secondary schools.

These initiatives demonstrate the commitment of considerable federal resources for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s mathematical (and scientific) capabilities.

Taken as a suite, this list seems to represent a comprehensive approach to improving students’ mathematics outcomes – all aspects of curriculum, teacher pre-service education and teacher in-service education receive attention.

So why has this (what appears to be) well thought-out plan proved to be seemly ineffective?

Continuity of funding

Having been part of a number of federally-funded programs aimed at strengthening the teaching capabilities, I think it is fair to say that most have been successful in what they set out to achieve.

Programs such as the Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers, for example, were carefully scoped out and then thoroughly monitored throughout their implementation. They are now undergoing stringent evaluation.

But no matter how successful, no program has any chance of securing additional funding. We appear to set agendas, allocate funds, complete projects and then move on to something new – unlike many successful countries that value continuity in their approach to teacher professional learning.

While project leaders will always have in place plans for the sustainability of the work begun through a program, the hard reality is that without further funding those involved will be expected to find new projects and income streams and move on.

The Conversation

Vincent Geiger, Associate Professor and Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Expansion is no longer the answer to improving the Australian education system

This article was written by Dean Ashenden, University of Melbourne

For 50 years, Australia’s policymakers have been persuaded that growth at every level of the education system would be a good thing in itself – and would drive economic growth and social progress.

That faith is now under unprecedented pressure.

While massive expansion has brought the benefits of education to millions, it has also created new problems, and left old ones unresolved.

Human capital theory

Belief in the power of education to lift lives and societies is hardly new. But “human capital theory” gave it a new form.

Developed by a small group of US economists in the late 1950s, human capital theory arrived in Australia via the OECD in 1964, when L. H. Martin became the first in a long line of Australian policymakers to argue that education was not a necessary expense but an investment.

Investment in education would make individuals and economies more productive, triggering a virtuous circle of economic growth, more equal opportunity, higher levels of health and civic-mindedness, and cultural enrichment. The economic rain would follow the educational plough.

It followed (as one Australian human capital theorist argued) that,

“education spending should be expanded up to the point where the rate of return to additional spending is equal to the general rate of return on capital”.

Anything less will reduce the rate of economic growth and result in “a culturally impoverished and less cohesive society”.

In the meantime, education pays for itself (as another theorist put it) “many times over”.

Promise and performance

Governments have certainly done as advised.

In just two generations they have tripled the proportion of students completing 12 years of schooling, expanded numbers in vocational education and training (VET) from a few tens of thousands to around 1.5 million, and multiplied higher education numbers by thirteen.

But 50 years on it is clear the benefits of vastly expanded access to education are heavily offset in ways scarcely anticipated by the human capital argument:

  • Despite claims that education pays for itself, the chronic problem of funding it has recently become acute, pushing minister Pyne from his portfolio, and his government toward a near-death electoral experience.
  • Even the OECD, the leading apostle of human capital theory, concedes that “over-education” is relatively pronounced in Australia. Employment and salary returns to degree and diploma programs have fallen steadily, while at the lowest qualification levels returns are negligible or even negative. On the other side of the transaction, employers continue to complain about the employability and “job readiness” of graduates
  • Despite more years of schooling by many more people, a persistently large minority of students is “disengaged”, and an even larger proportion of adults lacks the skills “to meet the demands of everyday life and work”.
  • Research dominates the universities and they dominate the system as a whole. The universities have been allowed to pursue their own interests at the expense of teaching, and to undertake increasing amounts of educational work for which neither they nor their students are well equipped. Their dominance extends to the purposes and curriculum of schooling, and contributes to the perception of VET – under-funded and beset by scandal – as an educational last resort.
  • There have been few or no gains in the social distribution of opportunity in and through education. It seems likely that structural inequality – the distance between the best and worst educated, and the distribution of the population across that spectrum – has increased.
  • Growth has been in time served as well as numbers enrolled, causing costs for young people to rise as returns fall. They spend a steadily increasing proportion of their lives in a limbo between childhood and fully adult circumstances and responsibilities in pursuit of employment which may or may not materialise.

Growth still the solution?

There are those who argue or assume that growth should still be the first objective of policy.

The most recent substantial review of higher education, for example, relied on human capital theory to argue for a much-expanded, demand-driven system.

Deloitte Access Economics prosecutes the same case, claiming not just a long list of social, health and other benefits for expansion, but an 8.5% increase in GDP “because of the impact that a university education has had on the productivity”.

Australia’s most successful federal minister of education, John Dawkins, recently called for a comprehensive rethink, but with funding for further growth as the central question, a view apparently shared by the Grattan Institute.

The guns of policy are pointing in the wrong direction. We need a re-orientation for the next 50 years as substantial as that introduced by Martin 50 years ago.

A different orientation for public policy

The first question for policy should not be the size of the system or its funding but its disposition, character, and consequences:

  • Policy has concentrated on the supply of skills and knowledge; it should now concentrate on their use and development in the workplace.
  • The effort to load up individuals with economically useful skills and knowledge via front-end, formal education should give way to expanding career and training paths and work-based learning across the broadest possible range of industries and occupations, including most of the professions.
  • The focus on the social distribution of education should be widened to tackle structural inequality. Policy must be directed less toward opportunity to get the best, and more toward providing the highest possible proportion of the population with the best possible educational experience and attainment.
  • The priority currently given to the top half of the system and to those who do well at school and go on to higher education should be given to those for whom education is a bad experience with bad consequences.
  • Policy should above all stop equating human capital with the consumption of formal education. That conflation has allowed occupational groups, including particularly the professions and those aspiring to professional status, to combine with education providers to use credentials to drive up amounts of education consumed. Educational provision should be seen within the larger frame of learning and its recognition, irrespective of where, when or how undertaken, but particularly learning and its use in workplaces.

It is possible to detect the beginnings of such a re-orientation in some of the areas discussed; in others, it is not.

Learning the lessons of experience

Although human capital theory has gone largely unchallenged in policy debates, among economists it has been as much criticised and rejected as accepted.

Even those who work within the human capital framework often distance themselves from the growth argument appealed to by governments and others.

The rise of human capital theory from one among several accounts of the education-economy relationship to conventional wisdom owes as much to its political usefulness to governments and to the education industry as to its merits.

There is much more to the complex interaction of education and learning (on the one hand) and economic activity (on the other) than human capital theory comprehends, including particularly competition for economic advantage through education by occupational groups and by families and individuals.

There is also much more to education than its contribution to economic activity.

Martin depended upon a theory. Now we have experience. If the lessons of the past 50 years are to be learned, policymakers will need a much broader course of instruction than can be provided by human capital theory.

The Conversation

Dean Ashenden, Honorary Senior Fellow, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Does wearing a school uniform improve student behavior?

Todd A DeMitchell, University of New Hampshire

In a growing number of school districts across the nation, students must wear a uniform.

This is not the stereotypical school uniform associated with Catholic schools – pleated plaid skirt with a blouse for girls; a button-down shirt, a necktie and dark pants for boys. Instead, these are mostly khaki and blue or khaki and red shirt/blouse and skirt/pants uniforms.

According to the US Department of Education, wearing a uniform can decrease the risk of violence and theft, instill discipline and help school officials recognize intruders who come to the school.

As a former teacher, principal and superintendent and now a policy and law scholar, I am skeptical about such claims.

Research on the effects of school uniforms is still nascent. And the findings on the impact of school uniforms on student behavior, discipline, connection to the school, attendance and academic gains is at best mixed.

Lawsuits, protests, individuality

About half of schools around the country have dress codes policies. A dress code identifies what clothes cannot be worn to school. A school uniform policy defines what clothes must be worn to school. Dress codes limit clothing options while school uniforms define clothing options.

Schools claim that when students come in uniforms, it improves discipline and leads to academic gains. The Bossier Parish School Board in Louisiana enacted a uniform policy in 2001 in order to increase test scores and reduce disciplinary problems.

However, such mandatory policies that decide what students can or cannot wear to schools, have led to free speech violations lawsuits. Students allege such policies are unconstitutional, as they restrict their freedom of expression.

There have been nine lawsuits up to 2014. School districts have won almost all the cases, except one, where an appeals court found the uniform policy of a Nevada school unconstitutional. The school required students to wear shirts emblazoned with the school motto, “Tomorrow’s Leaders,” which the court found to be a violation of students’ free speech rights.

In addition, students have protested in their schools as well.

An example of student and parental reaction to school uniforms is found in my home state of New Hampshire when Pinkerton Academy, a private secondary school, considered adopting a “uniform dress code” (a school uniform).

Students in an online protest wrote:

[A school uniform] takes away individuality. Also, [it] will not change study habits of students. [It means] too much money [needs to be spent] for each child. Parents do not have that type of money, especially in this economy. We have the right to freedom of expression and would like to keep it that way.“ [And] “its [sic] my right to wake up in the morning and have my own unique individuality.”

Mixed impact of school uniforms

A more important question is whether there is any evidence to show that mandatory uniform policies can lead to improved student outcomes.

Research shows mixed results: it’s true that some studies show a reduction in the incidence of misbehavior. But then, there are others that show an increase in student suspensions. A few others show no significant change in student misbehavior.

Research shows mixed results of the impact of school uniforms on student behavior.
Student image via www.shutterstock.com

For example, a 2010 study in a large urban school district in the Southwest found that asking students to wear uniforms did not result in any change in the number of suspensions for elementary school students.

In fact, middle and high school students experienced a significant increase in suspensions.

By contrast, a 2003 study that used a large national data set concluded that elementary and middle schools with school uniforms had fewer student behavior problems.

But, again, it found that high schools had a greater frequency of misbehavior.

Interestingly, even when evidence is available, educators’ perceptions could be at odds with it. For example, a study of educators in 38 North Carolina high schools found that 61% of the responding principals and assistant principals believed that there was a reduction in cases of misbehavior on campus when school uniforms were introduced. In reality, the data showed no change in incidents of crime, violence and suspensions.

Similarly, research on the efficacy of school uniforms on increasing student attendance and achievement is conflicted. For example, one study concluded that school uniforms resulted in increased student achievement and increased attendance.

However, another study found little impact on academics at all levels and little evidence of improvement in attendance for girls and drop in attendance for boys.

Implications for policy

So, what does lack of consistent research mean for policy?

In my view, it does not mean that schools should not implement such policies. It does mean, however, that educators must be clear about the goals that they hope to achieve with mandating school uniforms.

There is often a cost associated with mandatory school uniform policies. Lawsuits and community reactions can take up scarce resources of time and money.

Decreased discipline problems, increased attendance and increased academic achievement may not be achieved just by wearing khaki and blue. But there may be other benefits, such as, it could help a school promote its brand through a uniform look. School uniform may also serve as symbol of commitment to academic achievement.

The point is that clarity of purpose and outcome is necessary before students don their uniform in the morning.

I believe school uniforms may be part of a broad array of programs and approaches that a school may adopt to bring change. However, as a standalone measure, it implies that schools are simply trying to find an easy fix for difficult and complex problems.

School uniforms alone cannot bring about a sustained or large-scale change.

The Conversation

Todd A DeMitchell, Professor of Education, and Professor of Justice Studies, University of New Hampshire

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.